Intelligent, scary, well acted film

Rating: 9/10 (25 July 2003)

Contains Spoilers
Like other reviewers who really enjoyed this film, I would like to comment on all the negative remarks posted on IMDB. If one considers who the target audience is for the standard Hollywood horror flick, (young males) then it's really not that surprising that so many people didn't like 28 Days Later. Let's see: there was no bad acting, no senseless gore, no big-breasted bimbos running in the woods being chased by a zombie, no gratuitous sex scenes, in fact, no female nudity of any kind. However, there was plenty of male nudity, including a full frontal shot of the lovely Cillian Murphy. I heard and witnessed the uncomfortable comments and reactions from some of the audience members to the opening scene where the lead character, Jim, wakes up completely naked in a hospital, a rare sight in American movies.
Instead, Danny Boyle has created a thoughtful, intelligent, and well acted film that uses the devastation created by a virus to explore the human condition with all its flaws, weaknesses, and penchant for violence. The movie is filled with wonderful, haunting scenes, I was especially impressed by the opening shots of Jim aimlessly wandering through an abandon London, and by the sight of Manchester burning in the horizon as the survivors reached the army check point. One of my favorite moments was when Jim, Selena, Hannah, and Frank go shopping in an abandoned super market, and for a brief moment forget about the dangers awaiting them.
The acting was top notch, Brendan Gleeson as Frank and Christopher Eccleston, as Major Henry, were particularly effective, while Cillian Murphy turned out to be a huge revelation: a talented, beautiful, young actor, with terrific screen presence.
For those disappointed by 28 Days Later, I suggest you go see Freddy vs. Jason, the trailer I saw promises all the prerequisite gore, stupidity, and bimbos your little hearts desire.